The California Court of Appeal has made a significant ruling regarding the venue for a flood damage lawsuit involving the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The court's decision, filed on September 23, 2026, affects local government entities in Merced County that allege property damage due to flooding caused by the CDFW's actions. This ruling clarifies how similar cases will be handled in the future, particularly regarding the proper venue for lawsuits against state agencies.
The case arose after several local government entities, including the City of Merced and the McSwain Union Elementary School District, filed suit against the CDFW. They claimed that the department's failure to maintain waterways contributed to flooding that damaged their properties. The court's decision will impact how local governments can seek damages from state agencies in the future.
The dispute began when the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on October 16, 2023, following a rainstorm on January 10, 2023, which allegedly caused significant flooding. The plaintiffs claimed that the CDFW's inaction in maintaining waterways led to the flooding and subsequent property damage. In their legal actions, they cited various causes of action, including inverse condemnation and nuisance.
As the case progressed, multiple parties, including homeowners and business owners, joined the lawsuit, leading to a consolidation of several related cases. In late 2025, CDFW sought to transfer the case to a different county, arguing that the local court might be biased against them. However, the Merced County Superior Court denied this motion, stating that the venue was appropriate under Government Code section 955.3.
The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that Government Code section 955.3 clearly establishes that lawsuits brought by local governments against the state can be tried in the county where the local government is situated. The court ruled, "We agree with the trial court that Government Code section 955.3 applies notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure section 394, and deny the petition." This ruling clarifies that the CDFW must face the lawsuit in Merced County, where the plaintiffs are located.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of Government Code section 955.3, which allows local agencies to sue the state in their own jurisdiction. The ruling also indicates that the Attorney General has the option to request a change of venue before answering the complaint, but this was not done in this case. The court noted that the language of the statute is clear and broad, overriding other laws that might suggest a different venue.
This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for future cases involving local governments suing state agencies. It clarifies that local governments can bring their claims in their own counties, thus potentially making it easier for them to seek damages. The decision may also influence how state agencies prepare for and respond to lawsuits from local governments in the future.
Moving forward, the ruling means that local governments can expect to litigate cases against state agencies in their own jurisdictions. This could encourage more local governments to pursue legal action against state entities when they believe that state actions have led to property damage or other harms.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the CDFW plans to appeal this ruling. However, the court's decision is now binding, and it will shape how similar cases are handled in California's legal system.